[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Those nasty owners picking on those poor players....

> [Meninno, James A.]  Working for a living is not injustice.

Yes but ending up crippled thanks to any job is. I don't support the
military when they expose soldiers to pathogens and nerve gas. I don't
support mine owners when the subject miners to intolerable conditions. And I
don't support the owners when they try to bushwhack the players.

>  If athletes
> don't want to end up with physical problems, they're in the wrong
> career.

Very true. But my original point was that since the players are subject to
physical injury on the job, why not give them the portion of the profits
they deserve?

> But my point remains.  This is irrelevant when discussing
> market value.  Like any job, if your employer can't make a profit, you
> won't have a job much longer.

Unless you work in a collective.

> [Meninno, James A.]  So you're saying the owners are right to take
> action to control the increase in player salaries?  Good, I'm glad
> you're seeing sense now.

No I want them to excercise restraint on their own. We have reason to
believe(since the owners won't open their books) that the owners aren't
losing money like they say they are. They're just using this as leverage to
take more for themselves. They're just trying to impose a new cap in order
to solidify their control of the leagues profits. They're hardly losing
money(at least as much) as they claim.

> [Meninno, James A.]  I think you mean that the pie will be the same
> size, there's just fewer slices to share.

You're right. Correction taken.

>  I have a hard time believing
> that the players would do a very good job of marketing and administering
> the league.

That's what consultants are for.

> That might not be a terrible thing from a basketball point
> of view (there's far too much marketing now) but from your perspective
> of getting the player 'his fair share' I think it might be counter
> productive.  Maybe you were right after all.  The pie would be smaller.

I like your point about the marketing.
	Yes the pie would be smaller, but even if the pie were half what it was
before the players would still be getting about as much as they are now.

> [Meninno, James A.]  Let me see?  A player's salary = team performance.
> So Antoine should make the same as Bruce Bowen, right?  Your scenerio
> will have players on the same team fighting over who is more important
> and contributes more to the team.  Want to judge it objectively and just
> look at the stats?  That would create all sorts of conflicts over
> playing time and shots.  Imagine coaching a team that was rewarded that
> way!

And players already aren't that way? Look at how players play in contract
years. I doubt the conflict would be much different at all.

> [Meninno, James A.]  I don't see players wanting to take the risk.  They
> have guaranteed contracts now and most players don't want to accept less
> for the good of the team, even if the possibility of greater cash exists
> down the road, when the team is successful.

I do. Yes they do have guaranteed contracts but those contracts aren't
nearly as much as the money available. Unless the player's consultants made
some extremely foolish mistakes they players would stand to gain more.

> How would you ever get
> players to play for the Clippers then?

Easy it's a players league. They can remold the clips however they want to.
The only people who can mismanage it are the players. I doubt they could do
anywhere near as badly as Donald Sterling.

> OK, we'll get rid of the crappy
> expansion teams.  Yeah, the players would love that.  How many of them
> would you like to put out of work?

We wouldn't. See my early response.